Post deleted.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are motorcycles inherently dangerous?
- Thread starter James Burleigh
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
F... what's that Mikey? 
FJRless
Well-known member
I say.....if you're gonna ride, ride. If you're just gonna pontificate about the dangers of riding then don't. But leave the rest of us to our business of doing what we choose to do. Thanks, but no thanks I don't want a 'wake up call'.
Seriously?
oldryder
Well-known member
I gave this topic a lot of thought the last two years while I was going thru the exercise of training my then 16 year old daughter to ride on the street while simultaneously adjusting to the idea that she would be at risk when she started riding without me.
What I finally came to accept is while street riding has some unavoidable risk that "riskiness" can be reduced very significantly by rider training and good gear.
"Well trained" meaning both proficient at riding the motorcycle and also proficient at all the things that go into riding defensively.
Without any statistics to back it up my intuitive sense is that a well trained rider wearing full gear is safer than many people in their car. I suspect of you could parse the motorcycle accident statistics and separate out that portion of the riding public that seriously works to mitigate the risk you'd find that motorcycles are no more and quite likely less than the norm for automobiles.
What I finally came to accept is while street riding has some unavoidable risk that "riskiness" can be reduced very significantly by rider training and good gear.
"Well trained" meaning both proficient at riding the motorcycle and also proficient at all the things that go into riding defensively.
Without any statistics to back it up my intuitive sense is that a well trained rider wearing full gear is safer than many people in their car. I suspect of you could parse the motorcycle accident statistics and separate out that portion of the riding public that seriously works to mitigate the risk you'd find that motorcycles are no more and quite likely less than the norm for automobiles.
ndivita
Well-known member
I love this. Semantic dry humping is always fun. I like a good epigram as much as the next guy, but the issue to me is relative risk. Those statistical and demographic niceties aside, I believe that when I operate a motorcycle, compared to my operating an automobile, I am more likely to get into an accident, all things being equal (the great modifier!). I also believe that when I operate a motorcycle, compared to my operating an automobile, once that accident happens, I am more likely to have more and graver injuries than if the same accident happened while operating the automobile; except, e.g., I don't wear a helmet when I drive to work in my car (maybe I should). The relative probabilities can be altered by my riding style, skill, experience, judgment, impairment, luck, mechanical condition of the vehicle, and on and on and on with endless permutations of things that heighten or lessen the "risk."As a person whose job includes implementing enterprise risk management ("ERM") projects at the Berkeley campus, I think about risk a lot. My musings about risk are fueled not only by a professional curiosity, but also by a natural curiosity, a symptom of which is a bachelors in philosophy from the same place I now work.
When civilians (non-riding friends and colleagues) learn that I ride, they often exclaim in some form or other how dangerous motorcycles are. To this I sometimes respond, depending on how weary I am in that moment about hearing another story about how their friend's brother was killed in a motorcycle accident (does everyone have a story like that? :glare: )--I sometimes respond that they are not inherently dangerous, but they are risky.
And I may even go so far, depending now on my interlocutor's appetite for hearing me go on and on about something they don't really care about but just wanted me to be sure I knew I was crazy--I may even go so far as to explain that the risk can be mitigated to a very acceptable level if the rider is willing to get training, make good decisions, never ride impaired, and wear appropriate gear. Of course to this I get back, "Well, my friend's brother was wearing a helmet." Sigh....
Anyway, this morning I was reading an article in which the person being interviewed mentions something called the Bluejacket's Manual given to people when they join the Navy. He said it has "two little quotes, like epigrams," one of which is "The sea is not inherently dangerous, but it is extremely unforgiving."
Whether such a manual exists (never heard of it myself, in spite or because of being the son of a Naval Academy graduate), and whether or not these quotes are in said book, I don't care. But I sure like that quote, which I shall now adopt as my standard reply when told by civilians that motorcycles are dangerous:
[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]
Motorcycles are not inherently dangerous, but they are extremely unforgiving.
Photo courtesy of "Tom McQuiggan's Home Page" (https://www.mcqart.com/xj600/index.htm)
I am careful when I drive, but it doesn't matter if I wear a Hi Viz jacket. I am "more" careful when I ride, but I don't have a seat-belt and metal doors with steel reinforcement bars. I do know I am never going to "drop" my car in the driveway and snap a tibia while stationary. But I ride far less often than I drive, so where does that leave me?
On my motorcycle, more things can go wrong, faster, with more immediate catastrophic effect, than if I am driving (or riding a bicycle around the block or smoking a cigarette, for that matter). I don't smoke, and never have, but that does not mean I can afford to be less "careful" while riding except in some practically meaningless epidemiological sense.
Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong
Finagle's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way
O'Toole's Corrollary: Murphy was an optimist
See also: Woody Allen's interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "Sooner or later, everything turns to ****."
Ride safe!
Last edited by a moderator:
beemerdons
Certifiable Old Fart
James Burleigh
Well-known member
Gunny that. I recommend Pat Hahn's Ride Hard, Ride Smart. He talks about the "three degrees of separation," which I think nails it:
1. Good traffic strategies to anticipate and avoid trouble.
2. If trouble comes, good bike handling skills (braking, swerving, accelerating) to get out of trouble.
3. If you go down, good gear.
He says, and I believe him, and it sounds like you do too, that if you practice his three degrees, you significantly lower your risk of injury. And BTW it was his recommended "soft lane change" from said book that saved my bacon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Every rider needs to sit back and think about risk management wile riding.
1. Identify threats (Cars, weather, trees)
2. Assess the vulnerability (How bad is this going to hurt)
3. Determine the risk (Risk = Probability X Impact)
4. Identify ways to reduce risk (eliminate (Stay home), mitigate (training/gear))
5. prioritize risk reduction measures on a strategy (Cost-benefit analysis)
1. Identify threats (Cars, weather, trees)
2. Assess the vulnerability (How bad is this going to hurt)
3. Determine the risk (Risk = Probability X Impact)
4. Identify ways to reduce risk (eliminate (Stay home), mitigate (training/gear))
5. prioritize risk reduction measures on a strategy (Cost-benefit analysis)
This entire thread is good reading. What is the possibility of new sub-forum devoted to topics like this? I know I have some stories to tell about close misses, direct hits, and lessons learned around the topic of staying alive on two wheels.
Silver Penguin
Silver Penguin
Looking at it that way, life is 100% fatal. There is no other way out.
(OM had to delete his post becase it had a reference to farm animals that was not appropriate for this forum).
Seriously though, interesting, thought-provoking stuff as usual JB. Thanks for posting.
James Burleigh
Well-known member
It's the only way I change lanes now, whether on the freeway or city streets:
You signal, move to the outside of your lane, then cross the line, then move gradually to the center of your lane, then cancel your signal. In other words, you don't jump right into the center of the lane you're moving into, but gradually move into it. On the freeway it saves you from that aggressive driver coming up outta nowhere behind you at 100 MPH. You also have to be careful of drivers who move up to take your space in the lane you're moving out of.
Silver Penguin
Silver Penguin
Didn't know there was a name for that. It's what I do anyway because I'm paranoid. I honestly believe that they're all out to get me! It's my wits against their and although some of the cagers are pitifully armed, they all have better defense than I do.
Pepperell
Well-known member
Are motorcycles inherently dangerous?,
Of course they are!!
1. Lie down on the floor next to your 600# motorcycle.
2. Have someone put the motorcycle in it's normal operating position.
3. Have that person let go of the motorcycle.
I predict that you would have a 50-50 chance of being injured each time you repeat this experiment!!
Of course they are!!
1. Lie down on the floor next to your 600# motorcycle.
2. Have someone put the motorcycle in it's normal operating position.
3. Have that person let go of the motorcycle.
I predict that you would have a 50-50 chance of being injured each time you repeat this experiment!!
